From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8C3FC433FE for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 04:53:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42E7523A5A for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 04:53:27 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 42E7523A5A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:41694 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kmV09-0002Wr-Cy for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 23:53:25 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53560) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kmUyg-0001mB-4S for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 23:51:54 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([63.128.21.124]:25955) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kmUyb-0000eM-4W for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 23:51:53 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1607403106; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=HEAi0bA+j9UTD7cHRAZIOvytKYmXsVCI2IduNES6nrQ=; b=bgh2pkPD0bMvrLrQAmpc7UHb+CSWME0+hhlKMIOsd/k2On8n5UBGChJ2rOfynXyE1D101s fqJxrcyHXxdyek5XNM/Iifz7RoCXlXR1Ljl1sAveph0+dqhfC5aOylUtZCCFR16KDmXNXk a9KuE+5KW9srKf8W8ahZBOta/pn5pR0= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-68-OO7MZNoJPX2Ate4ALvQk3A-1; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 23:51:44 -0500 X-MC-Unique: OO7MZNoJPX2Ate4ALvQk3A-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 605F9107ACE4 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 04:51:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-112-30.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.112.30]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0E4227C27; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 04:51:35 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] virtiofsd: Fix lo_flush() and inode->posix_lock init To: Vivek Goyal , qemu-devel@nongnu.org References: <20201207183021.22752-1-vgoyal@redhat.com> From: Laszlo Ersek Message-ID: <861a96f9-34fa-cd1f-4bbf-4a3506c9afa2@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2020 05:51:34 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20201207183021.22752-1-vgoyal@redhat.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.23 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=lersek@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received-SPF: pass client-ip=63.128.21.124; envelope-from=lersek@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: virtio-fs@redhat.com, mszeredi@redhat.com, dgilbert@redhat.com, stefanha@redhat.com Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" Hi Vivek, On 12/07/20 19:30, Vivek Goyal wrote: > Laszlo is writing a virtiofs client for OVMF and noticed that if he > sends fuse FLUSH command for directory object, virtiofsd crashes. > virtiofsd does not expect a FLUSH arriving for a directory object. > > This patch series has one of the patches which fixes that. It also > has couple of posix lock fixes as a result of lo_flush() related debugging. > > Vivek Goyal (3): > virtiofsd: Set up posix_lock hash table for root inode > virtiofsd: Disable posix_lock hash table if remote locks are not > enabled > virtiofsd: Check file type in lo_flush() > > tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++--------- > 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > I put back the (wrong) FLUSH for the root dir into my code temporarily, to reproduce the crash (it does, with v5.2.0-rc4). Then I applied your series [*], and retested. [*] I'm unsure about the email you sent in response to 1/3, namely ; I ignored that when applying the patches. Indeed now I get a graceful -EBADF: [13316825985314] [ID: 00000004] unique: 60, opcode: FLUSH (25), nodeid: 1, insize: 64, pid: 1 [13316825993517] [ID: 00000004] unique: 60, error: -9 (Bad file descriptor), outsize: 16 For whichever patch in the series my testing is relevant: Tested-by: Laszlo Ersek (I'm having some difficulty figuring out which patch(es) should carry my T-b. - I think I didn't really test patch#2 with the above, so that one should likely not get the T-b - I think patch#3 is what I really tested. - But, if that's the case, doesn't patch#3 make the fix in patch#1 untestable, in my scenario? I believe the code is no longer reached in lo_flush(), due to patch#3, where the change from patch#1 would matter. Patch#1 seems correct, and the last paragraph of its commit message relevant, but I think my testing currently only covered patch#3. I'll let you decide where to apply my T-b.) Thanks! Laszlo